Hi, I think the concern might center around previous standards.
thanks, Rob On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:34 PM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > Stephen, > > Given that there appears to be emerging consensus around the "issue > discussion mode with email summaries sounds" presented in Chris' email from > just last week can we let that settle? > > We can certainly get a summary together - granted there have been interim > meetings with published minutes [0][1]. > > We could also adopt an approach similar to the QUIC WG where they would > declare a particular draft version one that they would run interop on. We > would need to decide on the process of declaring what that version was as > well as moving to the next version. > > spt > > [0] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2020-tls-02-202009031000/ > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2020-tls-03-202009210800/ > > > On Oct 27, 2020, at 16:31, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> > wrote: > > > > > > Hiya, > > > > The latest ECH draft from Oct 16 says "ECH uses draft-05 of > > HPKE for public key encryption." > > > > The latest HPKE draft (-06) from Oct 23 has a few minor > > incompatible changes (for good but relatively trivial > > reasons). > > > > So for interop ECH apparently requires use of an outdated > > I-D, despite the one week difference in publishing and > > a common co-author. > > > > It seems a bit mad that all that githubbery results in > > such a lack of co-ordination in two closely related > > specs. > > > > Anyway, I can manage to handle both HPKE-05 and > > HPKE-06 but this seems like yet another case where > > there is too much githubbery going on with the result > > that two closely linked drafts with a common co-author > > end up out of whack despite being issued within a week > > of one another. > > > > That and the velocity of discussion and changes on > > github are a major disincentive (for me) for implementing > > ECH. I simply do not have the cycles to keep up with it > > as it has been happening these last months. If that were > > the goal of the authors and those endlessly commenting on > > github (and I do not believe it is), then they would be > > close to reaching that goal. > > > > Can we not please freeze this stuff for at least long > > enough to get implementations done and somewhat tested? > > > > Frankly, I expect my plea here to be more or less ignored > > just as my previous entreaties were. I decided to send > > it anyway on the basis that the perhaps what seems like > > an obvious failure of the current approach (ECH can't > > interop unless you use an outdated I-D for HPKE) might > > show that all this apparent high velocity discussion on > > github is not as effetcive as claimed (in at least this > > case). > > > > Thanks, > > Stephen. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list > > TLS@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
